Mk71 8" naval gun respect thread.
Let's take a moment to mourn what NGFS could have been.
I'm crying right now. Peacetime Navy has lost its way...
I'm sorry, I legitimately can't feel anything other than my boner for the new ASM capability in the SM-6.
>>30036736
It will be shit.
it's-fucking-nothing-tier warhead.
high altitude crusie.
spoofable with litereally anything.
another cheap (but expensive for the tax-payer) money making scheme by your's truly, the merchant.
>>30036715
>Mk.71 8" naval gun
29km max range is kinda shit by today's standards. Especially for a 203mm gun.
I approve of ships having ridiculously large guns for their size.
>>30037021
Beats the Harpoon.
Personally, I'm waiting for the LRASM as the main event.
That shit's gonna be good.
literally the only purpose of the deck gun is congress going "muh fire support"
>>30037169
Shits gonna be underpowered, over expensive, underperforming, incompatable with any other 155mm in service, useless piece of shit.
>>30037198
naval gunfire support was critical in the Falklands war, you know the only conflict ever involving modern navies and peer adversity
>>30037362
You are not helping yourself look knowledgeable on the subject when you cannot get acronyms correct.
>>30037021
So you are telling me a missle that is completely programable can only do high altitude surface attacks?
Not like max range of course, you trade alt for distance, but you are saying that its impossible?
Niggah...
>>30037446
>you know the only conflict ever involving modern navies and peer adversity
you overdid the bait
>people actually think talking about ships they have never seen is a "hobby"
>>30037581
who is this semon demon
>>30037581
Hello newfriend, how did you find yourself here?
>>30037169
LRASM is just one of the many new missiles being developed for the US Navy. LRASM got standardized as AGM-158C so best bet is you will see Mk41 VLS integration tests soon.
Another missile to watch for is the Upgraded Tomahawk Block IV with a new seeker head for antiship use. The Naval Strike Missile from Norway being tested for LCS integration.
>>30036715
>Let's take a moment to mourn what NGFS could have been.
>The Operational Test and Evaluation Force determined inaccuracy made the gun operationally unsuitable, and concluded the lightweight 8"/55 was no more effective than the 5"/54.
>>30037169
Harpoon's warhead is nearly twice the weight.
>>30037823
The missle itself, on the sm-6, is much, much larger and heavyer.
>>30037823
>488lb warhead is twice as heavy as a 1000lb warhead
wew
Somewhat sidetracking but how do naval guns fire so fast? How do they cool/reload?
>>30037993
Giant autoloaders loading from a direct magazine.
As to the cooling, typically a water cool barrel shroud.
>>30037993
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqnqtvRFGUk
>>30037888
he is tallking about the sm-3 bakka
and by sm-3 I mean sm-6
>>30037545
Arty is arty. Yea he's mixing up land systems with naval ones but that's no biggie
>>30037993
Not fast enough. I want to see nuclear powered battleships with 155mm gatling guns firing LRLAP shells at 90 rpm.
>>30038328
Real talk is there anything in the laws of physics preventing this? Asking for a friend
>>30037169
LRASM is still going to be kind of shit on account of being slow as fuck. But hey at least you can actually put it in VLS and it has a sensible warhead.
Standard missiles and their tiny little warheads are still fine for sinking shitty middle eastern cuckboats though.
>>30038391
No. This is why I want it. Imagine the look on the faces of the guys holding the beach you are assaulting, when a BB with 6 of these bad boys lets loose for 20 seconds. 180 x 155mm shells, covering that fucking beach.
>>30037656
Mk 71 was a one off prototype jury rigged on a undersized ship you fucking tard.
>>30038391
The laws of physics don't prohibit you from doing very much at all.
The fact that designing an autoloader capable of loading 155mm shells that fast is an engineering nightmare, not to mention that the barrels would become incredibly hot very quickly.
So can you technically build a 155mm rotary autocannon that shoots at 90rpm? Yes.
Is anyone actually going to try and build one? No.
>>30038319
>LRASM
>artillery
>>30038499
And it was shit, hence it got cancelled.
>>30038536
yes artillery regiments do operate cruise missiles
>>30038398
>LRASM is still going to be kind of shit on account of being slow as fuck
gotta go fast makes missiles easier to detect and less capable of actively defending themselves from countermeasures
>>30038574
>>30038590
At the same time being slower gives the target more time to employ countermeasures and easier to engage.
>>30038590
>>30038647
Depends on the launch platform.
Subsonics have range, cost and course correction stability over supersonics. Cheaper and easier to manufacture (1 subsonic is superior in terms of range and cost than 1 supersonic of the same size) and way difficult to detect if using seaskimming.
Supersonics go fast in order to reduce the ability of the target's ability to react on time. Surface launched supersonics tend to have range penalties so the best launch platforms tend to be air.
Between a supersonic and a subsonic missile of the same size and weight the most superior are subsonics.
This is why you see all the major supersonic missiles tend to be fuck huge.
>>30038647
High speed greatly increases the distance a missile can be detected at, negating the reaction time benefit from such speeds. LRASM will give defenders less reaction time than any existing gotta go fast missile.
>>30038647
Cant hit what you dont see.
A stealth missle crusing at just under mach at sea level pretty much means only the CWIS will get a shot at you via thermal.
The effective fireing range of say, the AK-630 is 5 kilometers. It will take a grand total of 15 seconds for the lrsam to cross this threshold, give or take.
Finally when defending against supersonics, it is most likely that the supersonic is high flying in order to get its long range capability. This is most certainly detectable.
If using IR only, then such signature will be bright and very juicy for heat seeking missiles.
>>30036715
Why cant we replace our m109s with a 155mm conversion of a naval style rapid fireing gun? would it be too big? I mean we want to separate the crew and ammo compartment since the Cheney canceled challanger.
>>30038774
It would be pretty damn big. Naval 155mm is basically an auto loading turret (like an IFV's 20 or 30mm)...except its 155mm....
>>30038815
>. Naval 155mm is basically an auto loading turret (like an IFV's 20 or 30mm)...except its 155mm.
But wouldn't also provide limited AA and anti missile capability?
I remember tom clancy saying they were firing off their gun at Naval cruise missiles in red storm rising.
>>30038845
Extremely limited.
They do it on ships because why the fuck not.
Go ahead and start shooting off dozens of 155mm shells on land, what comes up must come down.
>>30038861
>Extremely limited.
>They do it on ships because why the fuck not.
>Go ahead and start shooting off dozens of 155mm shells on land, what comes up must come down.
Paired with a Radar vehicle to measure and correct velocities.
I would seem to be a step above current systems.
Advanced projectiles with timed or on command fuses seem like a cool future idea.
And basing it off a current design instead of basically trying to put the same capability in a tiny air mobile chassis like they did with NLOS
>>30038940
So now you have a super heavy artillery/air defence tank AND a radar vehicle, AND most likey an ammo carrier too.
Anon, this is my last post on the subject, because quite frankly its crazy. If you want to think its some viable, even superior than current systems, then by god buddy live the fucking dream, belive whatever you want.
>what is sergeant york
>what is otomatic
nevah been done beforaaah
>>30038774
A entire 127mm Mk45 mod4 gun system weighs ~30 tons.
>>30038987
>what is sergeant york
A heap of garbage.
>what is otomatic
An awesome sight to behold.
>>30039000
So add a 40 ton vehicle to it, tada, you now have something comparable to a modern Abrams in weight.
>we had auto-loading 8-inch guns that functioned flawlessly in 1948, hurling a 350lb shell once every 6 seconds
>nine per ship in three triple turrets
>we are just now getting around to putting auto-loading 6" guns back on a few ships
>only two single mounts per ship
I don't feel happy about any of this.
>>30039102
your 8 inch guns of old did not fire guided ammunition with a 190km range
>>30039135
Whats stopping you from developing guided munitions for an 8" gun?
>>30039007
Wargame player detected. Kill yourself, the OTOMATIC isn't even real.
>>30037888
>SM-6 warhead
>1k
What fucking planet are you from
>>30039143
It negates the purpose of an 8" gun being that size.
>>30039179
>picture of lrasm
lol are you retarded
>>30039179
Try rereading that post, and look at the picture.
>>30039135
Wouldn't an 8" gun firing guided rounds be not only able to shoot further, but carry a larger warhead as well?
You aren't just gaining 2" of shell girth, you can gain an extra 250 pounds worth of actual shell to fill with explosives due to the increase in length over a 6" shell.
Most 6" shells weigh in the area of 200 pounds, compare that to the 350 pound HC shells we were pushing out for shore bombardment in the 70's.
>>30039207
LRLAP is actually a missile, not a shell.
They are also adapting the HVP round used in railguns for 155mm guns.
>>30039233
Sprial 2 of the LRLAP will give it IR seeker...which will give it anti ship capabilitys, which will give the zumwalt a dual, fully automatic 1000 round missle launcher, not counting its VLS cells.
Thats some shit right there.
>>30039462
>Zumwalt has two automatic 6" diameter missile launchers with 1000 rounds
Aaaah fuck yeeeees
I love listening to people discuss small boy shit, it makes me hate being on a floating aggro magnet that much worse.
>>30038737
Where the actual fuck did they get this warhead lethality rating from?
>>30039692
The fact that for the same weight weapon a subsonic has more internal volume to spare to lug a fat warhead.
>>30038770
Remember that is a log type scale.
>>30038574
you can tell he's a vatnik because that's how the Russians do it.
The US doesn't do that.
>>30040208
actually my reference is the British Army
>>30040214
Which cruise missile does the Royal Artillery operate?
Oh wait, none of them.
>>30040308
>>30040308
there are a few coming into service and they are heading to the royal artillery regiment u dingle dong
>>30040208
>>30040308
us army artillery regiments used to operate their own ballistic missiles still do with atacms.
a cruise missile is anything that derives lift from 'wings'. doesn't have to be the size of a tomahawk, or nuclear powered.
>>30038725
This is why Chinese Kalibrs are great they sneek near and then dash.
>>30040428
nuclear armed, rather
>>30038532
you could do it OG Gatling Gun style where it only fires the top barrel and the other barrels pass through a giant freezer.
>>30040428
The definition for a cruise missile is that it has to be air-breathing. The US army doesn't not operate any cruise missile under that definition.
>>30040324
Such as?
I do plenty of British Army writeups on /k/ and I've NEVER heard of this sort of bullshit.
